Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Qualitymark · 05-11-2015 8:31am

roverrules wrote: »

For all those people who almost always launch into a victim blaming argument

If you sneak up on a lion and it kills and eats you, do you blame the lion? Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Just use some uncommon common sense and don't do it

This is certainly true. If there's a huge truck waiting at lights, the sensible thing to do is to wait behind it.

But my own observation with these trucks is that the problem is not cyclists coming up beside a paused HGV but HGVs driving up to the lights and not realising that there are cyclists already there.

Excellent point by Pinch Flat - these trucks should all have proximity sensors that beep when cyclists are near. If the sensors are anything like the ones for cars, they're not even expensive; I got a set for my ex-car for parking, and they only cost a few quid.

randomname2005 · 05-11-2015 9:31am

Qualitymark wrote: »

This is certainly true. If there's a huge truck waiting at lights, the sensible thing to do is to wait behind it.

100% agree.

Qualitymark wrote: »

But my own observation with these trucks is that the problem is not cyclists coming up beside a paused HGV but HGVs driving up to the lights and not realising that there are cyclists already there.

Excellent point by Pinch Flat - these trucks should all have proximity sensors that beep when cyclists are near. If the sensors are anything like the ones for cars, they're not even expensive; I got a set for my ex-car for parking, and they only cost a few quid.

However, in my experience you also have the case where a cyclist will filter down the left of a stream of traffice because none of the vehicles have indicators on. Then it turns out that half of them are turning left and if they do indicate it is at the last second.

Macy0161 · 05-11-2015 9:43am

roverrules wrote: »

For all those people who almost always launch into a victim blaming argument

If you sneak up on a lion and it kills and eats you, do you blame the lion? Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Just use some uncommon common sense and don't do it

We don't actually know in this case whether the driver didn't come up the outside of the cyclist. The assumption appears to be the unfortunate cyclist went up the inside of the truck - is there evidence for that? We'll believe the truck driver who didn't notice enough contact to do damage to the truck, right by the cab door, to even stop and check did he hit something or someone?

The bottom line is if the cyclist entered a blind spot, and that 3 lights weren't enough, he still would've been in a blind spot if he was head to toe in hi-viz. So why mention Hi-viz?

Leroy42 · 05-11-2015 10:14am

roverrules wrote: »

For all those people who almost always launch into a victim blaming argument

If you sneak up on a lion and it kills and eats you, do you blame the lion? Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Just use some uncommon common sense and don't do it

Wow, this I think wins the award for the day.

If you sneak up to a lion, hell if you cycle towards a lion dressed head to toe in hi-vis with multiple high lumen lights flashing, the lion may well attack and eat you but that is out of instinct, fear and probably hunger. The lion does not think about it, and has no way of controlling its response apart from its instincts. Therefore if you did approach a lion and get eaten I would agree it's your own fault as their behaviour is entirely predicable.

How exactly do you sneak up on a HGV? Do you mean cycling up the inside of the vehicle whilst the driver is not bothering to check their mirrors. HGV drivers know that the design of their vehicles make it a higher risk of this happening and so need to take additional care when manoeuvring to avoid this.

Based on your 'arguement', any driver can basically claim that the cyclist didn't do enough to make them aware they were there and therefore its their fault.

Does an driver know of the 'possibility' that a cyclist may come up the inside? Yes of course it happens all the time.

Pinch Flat · 05-11-2015 11:26am

randomname2005 wrote: »

100% agree.

However, in my experience you also have the case where a cyclist will filter down the left of a stream of traffice because none of the vehicles have indicators on. Then it turns out that half of them are turning left and if they do indicate it is at the last second.

I usually find a crystal ball mounted on my handle bars useful for these scenarios

.

Cyclists are allowed to legally filter left side of stationary traffic. But as I get closer to the junction, I'll be a bit more cautious

Qualitymark · 05-11-2015 11:42am

By the way, is 'traffice' the way one says 'traffic' with an awfully fur hur accent? (As in "I was combing my lovely fur hur".)

CramCycle · 05-11-2015 12:29pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I usually find a crystal ball mounted on my handle bars useful for these scenarios .

Cyclists are allowed to legally filter left side of stationary traffic. But as I get closer to the junction, I'll be a bit more cautious

I have taken to just going on the outside most of the time coming to junctions, adds a bit of time to filter out but I find it easier and safer in many areas. With my lights, many presume I am a motorbike as well which seems to get a better reaction from drivers.

Macy0161 · 05-11-2015 12:55pm

CramCycle wrote: »

I have taken to just going on the outside most of the time coming to junctions, adds a bit of time to filter out but I find it easier and safer in many areas. With my lights, many presume I am a motorbike as well which seems to get a better reaction from drivers.

The one time I got knocked off (well so far at least) I was doing the same, and some idiot did a u turn out of the queue without indicating and took me out! (Wasn't wearing hi-viz, thought my two lights, including the Cree LED, were enough!).

RainyDay · 05-11-2015 1:03pm

roverrules wrote: »

Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Why do you assume that these incidents arise from 'cyclists sneaking up the inside', given the large number of other possible scenarios involved?

Carawaystick wrote: »

its peculiar that the hsa take action against a sole trader for having a Pirelli calender in his office, but take no actions against people who kill other road users.

Interesting issue - does Health & Safety legislation have a significant impact here? Would it (for example) apply to a business who encourages or condones regular illegal parking by customers which ultimately endangers cyclists?

CramCycle wrote: »

I have taken to just going on the outside most of the time coming to junctions, adds a bit of time to filter out but I find it easier and safer in many areas. With my lights, many presume I am a motorbike as well which seems to get a better reaction from drivers.

Admit it - you do the 'vroom vroom' noise as well when you go round the outside, right?

schemingbohemia · 05-11-2015 3:23pm

I don't think there are any limitations to what coroner juries can recommend, they can basically say what they like, such as in this case.

tomasrojo · 05-11-2015 4:37pm

roverrules wrote: »

For all those people who almost always launch into a victim blaming argument

If you sneak up on a lion and it kills and eats you, do you blame the lion? Like wise if you a sneak up the inside of an hgv is it always the hgvs fault?

Just use some uncommon common sense and don't do it

I agree with the main point made by others in answer to this (above all, that we don't know the cyclist went up the inside). Also, if my neighbourhood was littered with sleeping lions and this was resulting in death and disability, I'd expect any inquiry into what to do to include some thought about why there are so many sleeping lions around, and not so much emphasis on how we can come to an accommodation with the lions.

(Sleeping lions = junctions where people get injured or killed by turning traffic, I suppose.)

eeeee · 06-11-2015 12:46am

THere is an overwhelming lack of common sense from cyclists in relation to HGV's in my experience of cycling around Dublin daily. Every single time there is a HGV queueing at a light and there is another cyclist they filter up beside it, to the left or right. This is beyond stupidity. It's suicide. I don't think cyclist appreciate just how little you can see from a cab. And before people jump in with the 'They should have sensors etc.', really, people need to exercise some understanding in relation to other road users. HGV's have blind spots, They are also the biggest, slowest and loudest vehicles on the road. They have as much right to be there as any other vehicle. They are more essential than most. They're not going to sneak up on you, pop out of no where - in a city, as a cyclist you CANNOT miss them, so use the head around them! In the same way high-viz is used to castigate cyclists, in order to put the onus of responsibility on cyclists and not drivers, cyclists need to be aware of HGV blind spots. HGV's need to be aware of cyclists. I have yet to experience on that isn't, although I am 100% sure there are some out there who aren't. I have never experienced a HGV drive up on top of a bunch of cyclists at a light, they tend to wait behind them.

TL DR, don't cycle up the inside or outside of HGV's. If is entirely your own fault if something happens there. I think a bit of understanding between HGV's and cyclists is needed - more from the cyclist than the HGV in my daily experience. I have lost count of the amount of cyclists who have filtered on by me as I wait behind HGV's at lights. I think it's mainly because they genuinely don't know the danger rather than recklessness.

Re the case unless you were involved it is impossible to speculate what happened.

tomasrojo · 06-11-2015 5:29am

gadetra wrote: »

I have lost count of the amount of cyclists who have filtered on by me as I wait behind HGV's at lights. I think it's mainly because they genuinely don't know the danger rather than recklessness.

I certainly wasn't aware of how dangerous it was early on when I was cycling independently of my parents. It's not even the blind spots, though obviously that's a major part of the problem. It's the way the gap between the truck and the roadside suddenly narrows to nothing when they do a turn.

Since trucks/buses turning left are responsible for about 70% of cyclist deaths in urban areas, it's an area that could be profitably targeted by an awareness campaign, but the RSA's effort was rather bungled, completely missing the point that a truck's blind spots aren't all right up beside the truck. You can keep a decent distance alongside a truck and be in the blind spot -- and find that decent distance suddenly narrowing to nothing.

Qualitymark · 06-11-2015 9:40am

HGVs shouldn't be travelling through the city at all.

mcgratheoin · 06-11-2015 10:30am

tomasrojo wrote: »

completely missing the point that a truck's blind spots aren't all right up beside the truck. You can keep a decent distance alongside a truck and be in the blind spot -- and find that decent distance suddenly narrowing to nothing.

Totally agree with this - in my head i always thought that the blind spots were along the truck body, but having become a little more educated I can see that's not the case.

tigerboon · 06-11-2015 10:31am

Qualitymark wrote: »

HGVs shouldn't be travelling through the city at all.

There will always be exceptions, materials to construction sites for example

jon1981 · 06-11-2015 10:44am

Qualitymark wrote: »

HGVs shouldn't be travelling through the city at all.

I commute by bike in the city every day, including a good portion of the quays both sides. I honestly don't think there is that much HGV traffic these days. There will always be exceptions as mentioned. Most deliveries take place really early and the port tunnel brings 90%+ of the traffic away from the city.

Qualitymark · 06-11-2015 10:46am

tigerboon wrote: »

There will always be exceptions, materials to construction sites for example

2,500 years ago the Romans made a law that all deliveries to their congested streets be made overnight. We could do the same.

rollingscone · 06-11-2015 11:09am

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Totally agree with this - in my head i always thought that the blind spots were along the truck body, but having become a little more educated I can see that's not the case.

Learned (thankfully due to professional reasons and not personal experience) that for a lorry driver to see the space within one car length ahead he/she has to stand up in the cab.

Leroy42 · 06-11-2015 11:45am

Was out early today (in the dark) on the bike and decided to do a little review of what was going around me rather than simply focus on myself!

1st off, its was 6am so very little traffic of any kind about but there were a number of runners and people walking as well as a few cyclists and car etc.

From my experience, I would make the claim that in urban areas (those that are serviced by street lighting) there is no excuse for not seeing a cyclist or pedestrian. This is regardless of the clothes/hi-vis/lights situation. If they are dressed in dark clothes there is no doubt they are harder to see, and harder still to get a detailed view of them, but they are no invisible.

So, I think the excuse that a driver didn't see a cyclist/pedestrian is more accurately stated as the driver didn't take the necessary time to ensure that they saw everything.

To reinforce my experience this morning at one point a car pulled out ahead of me at a T junction. They rolled up and then sped through. They were, I assume, looking for car lights and seeing none, assumed the way was clear.

Obviously, this only relates to street lighting areas. Now I'm not for one minute saying that lights mainly, and hi-vis to a certain extent don't make the person more conspicuous, but even without these they are still visible.

Alanstrainor · 06-11-2015 11:58am

rollingscone wrote: »

Learned (thankfully due to professional reasons and not personal experience) that for a lorry driver to see the space within one car length ahead he/she has to stand up in the cab.

If I'm at the advance stop space for cyclists infront of a truck, I always make a point of giving a wave to the driver to make sure he knows I'm there.

eeeee · 06-11-2015 12:09pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

HGVs shouldn't be travelling through the city at all.

Whole heartedly disagree. HGV's are traffic, the same as cars and bikes. You are traffic, It's up to you to deal with other traffic. HGV's ate restricted in the city centre, 7-7 as far as I can remember.

The main problem with HGV's is other road users lack of knowledge/understanding around them. This has been discussed extensively on other threads before. I think initiatives like parking a lorry on o connell Dr and having cyclists and pedestrians sit in and see just how much they can't see goes some way to fostering understanding.

To say they should be banned is ludicrous fairy talk in my opinion. The cost of additional vans needed to deliver an article load, paying 4+ drivers to do the work of one, diesel, insurance, maintenance, 4+ vehicles on the road instead of one, associated increased emissions, and therefore the cost of goods and services that are serviced by HGV's necessarily rises...all because dome people fail to understand blind spots? Not justifiable in my opinion. Cyclists and HGV's get on just fine if a little empathy and common sense is extended. Use your brain, avoid going up the inside of them and their blind spots and there is no problem. They're the mist tested drivers on the road, and are continually tested on an ongoing basis (cpc's). When it comes down to a car driver who has done one test in their lives his knows when and a continually evaluated HGV driver I know who I trust!

Qualitymark · 06-11-2015 12:17pm

gadetra wrote: »

To say they should be banned is ludicrous fairy talk in my opinion.

If not banned, then it's an argument for a good network of separated cycle lanes.

The city - especially the quays - is a lot less terrifying to me since the ban on really big HGVs.

tomasrojo · 06-11-2015 12:20pm

gadetra wrote: »

When it comes down to a car driver who has done one test in their lives his knows when and a continually evaluated HGV driver I know who I trust!

The time-limited 5+-axle ban is regarded as a success, by and large, though I'm not sure what the costs and logistics of extending this would be, or whether that would also be a success.

I do know that HGVs and buses are responsible for about 70% of cyclist road deaths in urban areas and are nothing like 70% of traffic by number, so despite the shortcomings of car drivers, I'd rather be around cars.

tigerboon · 06-11-2015 12:23pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

2,500 years ago the Romans made a law that all deliveries to their congested streets be made overnight. We could do the same.

The whole of the construction industry cannot go on the night shift. There are a lot of safety risks associated with night work. There are enough hazards on a typical site as it is. All those trucks dealing with people leaving pubs etc. as well. There are also noise restrictions in the city at night.

tomasrojo · 06-11-2015 12:26pm

I don't know much about the construction industry, but most HGVs I see are not heading for construction sites.

Concrete trucks, on the other hand, I seem to recall that they figure disproportionately in death and injury statistics. Think skip carriers were pretty high too.

Qualitymark · 06-11-2015 12:28pm

tigerboon wrote: »

The whole of the construction industry cannot go on the night shift. There are a lot of safety risks associated with night work. There are enough hazards on a typical site as it is. All those trucks dealing with people leaving pubs etc. as well. There are also noise restrictions in the city at night.

The Romans didn't build all night either, but deliveries were at night.

06-11-2015 12:45pm

gadetra wrote: »

Whole heartedly disagree. HGV's are traffic, the same as cars and bikes. You are traffic, It's up to you to deal with other traffic. HGV's ate restricted in the city centre, 7-7 as far as I can remember.

The main problem with HGV's is other road users lack of knowledge/understanding around them. This has been discussed extensively on other threads before. I think initiatives like parking a lorry on o connell Dr and having cyclists and pedestrians sit in and see just how much they can't see goes some way to fostering understanding.

If a vehicle has such huge blind spots, it shouldn't be operated in close proximity with cyclists and pedestrians. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

I still don't really understand why HGV design seems to completely ignore responsibilities to other road users. Isn't it worth asking WHY the cab is so high up and if there is no way to bring the driver down to road level? Isn't it worth asking why HGV's don't have sensors to detect pedestrians and cyclists in blind spots? We act as if the safety issues are some sort of act of god and there's nothing we can do.

Anyway, as they are currently designed, they shouldn't be on city streets, certainly not during the day.

If the manufacturers and users of these vehicles start to demonstrate that they take the safety of other road users seriously, that policy can change.

eeeee · 06-11-2015 12:51pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

The Romans didn't build all night either, but deliveries were at night.

So they can deliver ready mix and not use it until he morning? Oh my. As stated, sites are amongst the most dangerous places to work. Only being able to operate at night time would not help! Also think about the lorries bringing tarmac etc. for the roads you cycle on, would you rather they worked exclusively at night? HGV's have jobs to do the same as the rest of us. They deliver and transport almost everything you own, eat and use. To have them banished to the night time displays an astonishing lack of empathy and understanding for an entire industry. Just be careful!

You have a responsibility as a road user to be aware of the traffic around you. We expect cars to look out for us cyclists, to be considerate and aware of us even though we are a very different vehicle and more often then not operating at different speeds to cars. Can't the same consideration be extended from us to HGV's? I really don't understand why there is such a big problem with them, once you understand the blind spot there is nothing difficult or dangerous about them.

I suspect a strong amount of cyclist culpability in the HGV cases, buses less so as I have encountered severely bad and punishing behaviour from buses towards me as a cyclist (however the vast majority are fine), I have never had a bad experience with a HGV. Stay out of the blind spot, and the simple adage that if you can't see the drivers face in their mirrors they can't see you stands true. There is no need for tension between HGV's and cyclists IMO.

eeeee · 06-11-2015 12:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If a vehicle has such huge blind spots, it shouldn't be operated in close proximity with cyclists and pedestrians. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

I still don't really understand why HGV design seems to completely ignore responsibilities to other road users. Isn't it worth asking WHY the cab is so high up and if there is no way to bring the driver down to road level? Isn't it worth asking why HGV's don't have sensors to detect pedestrians and cyclists in blind spots? We act as if the safety issues are some sort of act of god and there's nothing we can do.

Anyway, as they are currently designed, they shouldn't be on city streets, certainly not during the day.

If the manufacturers and users of these vehicles start to demonstrate that they take the safety of other road users seriously, that policy can change.

Wow. Ok cabs are designed to the way they are to take the size of engine needed to pull the loads they pull. They have sensors and cameras and mirrors. They are the most qualified drivers on the road. If you can't extend a little care walking, cycling and driving about other vehicles then I would suggest you are at risk. Manufacturers most definitely do take safety seriously, and safety features have come on in leaps and bounds in recent decades.

What appears to be missing is consideration and understanding. We all have to share the road, I don't understand why it's so difficult to stay out of a HGV's blind spot. Cars and vans have blind spots. too. They kill more people every year than HGV's do. Should they be put off the road? Are manufacturers not taking safety seriously?

rollingscone · 06-11-2015 1:06pm

Yes and yes to the last two

Might seriously be time for a HGV understanding thread - good place to give advice and I'll vouch again for the care and attention paid by the vast majority of HGV and Coach drivers I deal with through my job.

06-11-2015 1:07pm

gadetra wrote: »

Wow. Ok cabs are designed to the way they are to take the size of engine needed to pull the loads they pull. They have sensors and cameras and mirrors. They are the most qualified drivers on the road. If you can't extend a little care walking, cycling and driving about other vehicles then I would suggest you are at risk. Manufacturers most definitely do take safety seriously, and safety features have come on in leaps and bounds in recent decades.

What appears to be missing is consideration and understanding. We all have to share the road, I don't understand why it's so difficult to stay out of a HGV's blind spot. Cars and vans have blind spots. too. They kill more people every year than HGV's do. Should they be put off the road? Are manufacturers not taking safety seriously?

Wow indeed.

Do you think there should be any restrictions on the types of vehicles used in urban areas, with high concentrations of pedestrians and cyclists?

How about HGVs twice the size that they are now? With bigger blind spots! Would you oppose that, or do you think it would be OK if we all respected them and made sure our young children gave them a wide berth as they trundled through our streets?

Any sensible person will be of the opinion that there's an appropriate maximum size for urban road transport. I think HGVs as they exist today are way over it, you obviously don't. That's fair enough.

tomasrojo · 06-11-2015 1:11pm

On the cab design question, I recall seeing newer designs with longer glass, front and sides.

tomasrojo · 06-11-2015 1:15pm

gadetra wrote: »

I don't understand why it's so difficult to stay out of a HGV's blind spot. Cars and vans have blind spots. too. They kill more people every year than HGV's do.

In cities, HGVs are the big killers (with buses doing pretty badly too). As I said, about 70% of cyclist deaths. They're enormously more likely to kill a cyclist in a town.

I guess it isn't difficult to stay out a truck's blind spot (except that they're not where most people, and the RSA, might think they are), but the onus should be on hauliers to minimise the blind spots.

Leroy42 · 06-11-2015 1:20pm

Is there really no other way than to have the cab sit so high up? Could it not be redesigned to lower the cab down to a more 'normal' driving position? (I have no idea, no engineering background). Here is a link to a article about redesign. TL:DR - Redesign the cab to acheive 50% decrease in blind spots and thus reduce threats.http://www.engineersjournal.ie/2014/09/23/new-lorry-design-save-lives-roads-according-study/

Gadetra, you are right in that we should all take consideration of the threats around us, no point complaining about it and making out like it doesn't exist.

On the other hand, as Orinoco points out there is an inherent design flaw in the current HGV. Maybe it didn't matter so much back when they were originally designed, but it appears (from the high % proportion of deaths involving them converse to the volume of vehicles) that the current design needs a rethink.

To simply accept that that threat exists, and yet do nothing strategic about it seems cavalier. Educate road users for certain, but at what point do we simply say that maybe a redesign of the HGV may solve some of the problems. THe inherent issues with HGV, noise, polution, threat to other road users have already been accepted and lead to the 5 axle ban in the CC

Qualitymark · 06-11-2015 1:20pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

In cities, HGVs are the big killers (with buses doing pretty badly too). As I said, about 70% of cyclist deaths. They're enormously more likely to kill a cyclist in a town.

I guess it isn't difficult to stay out a truck's blind spot (except that they're not where most people, and the RSA, might think they are), but the onus should be on hauliers to minimise the blind spots.

And as a temporary workaround, it should be possible to invent a red light that would illuminate the entire distance of the driver's blind spot, to warn cyclists not to enter that space.

But I still think a network of separated cycle lanes is what's needed - and these things off the road, if only at high-traffic time. Indeed, the London Assembly has called for a rush-hour ban on HGVs today

http://freightinthecity.com/2015/11/london-assembly-calls-for-rush-hour-hgv-ban-in-capital/

06-11-2015 1:42pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

On the other hand, as Orinoco points out there is an inherent design flaw in the current HGV. Maybe it didn't matter so much back when they were originally designed, but it appears (from the high % proportion of deaths involving them converse to the volume of vehicles) that the current design needs a rethink.

Fundamentally the problem is that HGVs were not designed for cities. They are designed to carry large loads long distances on major roads, and they do a fine job of it.

But once you get into a built up area with smaller roads, they cause all sorts of trouble and all sorts of accidents. The cab in particular is obviously not designed with city driving in mind - if they want access to the city then it should be.

Macy0161 · 06-11-2015 1:49pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I guess it isn't difficult to stay out a truck's blind spot (except that they're not where most people, and the RSA, might think they are), but the onus should be on hauliers to minimise the blind spots.

Not if you're approaching a HGV, but not much you can do if a HGV comes up from behind.

I'm sure, and witness, cyclists getting themselves in poor positions with HGV's, but there does seem to be the assumption that it's always the cyclists fault (as we saw in the recent coroners case), where as they could be getting squeezed out by a HGV that has come up along side, wasn't paying attention and now has a cyclist in a blind spot.

galwaycyclist · 06-11-2015 2:50pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Fundamentally the problem is that HGVs were not designed for cities. They are designed to carry large loads long distances on major roads, and they do a fine job of it.

But once you get into a built up area with smaller roads, they cause all sorts of trouble and all sorts of accidents. The cab in particular is obviously not designed with city driving in mind - if they want access to the city then it should be.

Bingo

One of the reasons city buses tend to be safer around cyclists at junctions is because the driver is lower down and the doors are made of glass. They can look through the doors and see anything beside them.

Qualitymark · 06-11-2015 4:51pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Bingo

One of the reasons city buses tend to be safer around cyclists at junctions is because the driver is lower down and the doors are made of glass. They can look through the doors and see anything beside them.

Assuming the driver's awake and alert. One of them nearly got me the other day, when I was cycling on a narrow road with one of those kind of framed chainlink things on one side that they use while building Luas tracks. He swooshed up beside me and started going left… left… left…

I banged on the side of the bus three times with the flat of my hand; still going left… left… left…

Banged again, and this time he heard me, or his passengers did and yelled. He pulled out and I got out in front of him and waved thanks and got the hell out of there.

How he didn't see me is a mystery: flashing lights, bizarre fluorescent-Battenburg-cake hi-viz, scarlet Lidl jacket, reflective Sealskinz gloves.

RainyDay · 06-11-2015 5:53pm

Sitting in a classroom (sleeping gently) is now considered to be a hazardous activity;

https://twitter.com/gardainfo/status/662671694381916160

galwaycyclist · 06-11-2015 6:59pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

Assuming the driver's awake and alert. One of them nearly got me the other day, when I was cycling on a narrow road with one of those kind of framed chainlink things on one side that they use while building Luas tracks. He swooshed up beside me and started going left… left… left…

I banged on the side of the bus three times with the flat of my hand; still going left… left… left…

Banged again, and this time he heard me, or his passengers did and yelled. He pulled out and I got out in front of him and waved thanks and got the hell out of there.

How he didn't see me is a mystery: flashing lights, bizarre fluorescent-Battenburg-cake hi-viz, scarlet Lidl jacket, reflective Sealskinz gloves.

No - I knew driver behaviour would come up - but I think statistically buses are less associated with cyclist fatalities than HGVs even though the sizes are similar. (makes mental note to check)

Now that you mention it, the effect may actually be due to the presence of passengers.

It just occurred to me that some fatalities I have heard of involving buses - were with buses that were out of service at the time. Another line of enquiry.

eeeee · 06-11-2015 10:08pm

Just wondering at what point is it acceptable for human culpability to cede to technology? Is not one of the themes in this thread that cyclists don't want to wear high-viz as it removes the responsibility of observation from the motorist to the cyclist? The HGV argument can be said to be the same. Until teleportation can transport the millions of tones of goods, equipment and services required by a city/town requires to function, HGV's are the most efficient and cost effective method of transporting goods. So cyclists have to learn how to be around them. HGV drivers spend a lot of time every year learning how to be around other traffic.

It strikes me that most cyclists will have experienced cars, either driven in them or been a passenger, same with buses and coaches but not with HGV's. This must have some bearing on the problem. Of course there are rogue drivers, but, from what I see on Dublin streets every day the majority of cyclists I encounter have no idea their behaviour is so dangerous around HGV's. As HGV's are an essential part of our transport system, sitting cyclists into a cab may make them more aware of the dangers/how to safely cycle near one? All the beeps, magic mirrors, sensors and long windows can't make up for someone cycling in too close to the cab of a vehicle. And I think it's mainly from a lack of awareness. More campaigns maybe? We all have to share the road, and we can't expect motorists to make an exception of observation for cyclists and not extend the same curtesy ourselves to HGV's.

roverrules · 06-11-2015 10:13pm

Qualitymark wrote: »

2,500 years ago the Romans made a law that all deliveries to their congested streets be made overnight. We could do the same.

What about cyclists at night time, they'd surely be more at risk?

tigerboon · 07-11-2015 1:07am

Qualitymark wrote: »

The Romans didn't build all night either, but deliveries were at night.

Yeah, well look at the state of the Colluseum now, half fallen down.
Concrete and tarmac/asphalt can't be stored until the next day. Safety wise, I know of workers who have been assaulted, fallen into open manholes, and threatened with a 3ft machete by a drugged up loon while working at night. Some of these lads will never work again. Trading your safety for theirs is not the answer. It's very easy to say do these things at night, but why not do the safe office jobs at night?

Qualitymark · 07-11-2015 7:39am

roverrules wrote: »

What about cyclists at night time, they'd surely be more at risk?

Fewer of them, though.

tigerboon wrote: »

Yeah, well look at the state of the Colluseum now, half fallen down.
Concrete and tarmac/asphalt can't be stored until the next day. Safety wise, I know of workers who have been assaulted, fallen into open manholes, and threatened with a 3ft machete by a drugged up loon while working at night. Some of these lads will never work again. Trading your safety for theirs is not the answer. It's very easy to say do these things at night, but why not do the safe office jobs at night?

I'm not suggesting that construction workers do the building at nigh. I'm suggesting that the supplies - the sacks of cement, the gravel, the blocks, the kilometres of electrical cable and piping, the slates, the tiles… - that all that, or a high proportion of it, be delivered at night, so that the trucks don't have to cross the city during the day. It would even be cheaper and more efficient for the truckers: little or no car traffic to stop them.

Wishbone Ash · 07-11-2015 9:57am

Qualitymark wrote: »

.. the sacks of cement..

Concrete is delivered 'ready-mixed' to 99% of sites.

Leroy42 · 07-11-2015 10:29am

Right, so we are now down to discussing the building trade?

Lets agree that night time only deliveries is not a complete solution.

Some on here are of the opinion that current HGV trucks are here to stay, and it is up to others to adapt to their shortcomings and massive blind spots. The job they do is important and as such it would appear that HGV should be accepted and we should adapt to suit them.

Others, myself being one, agree of the need for HGV type vehicles but consider the inherent design flaws as unacceptable in the modern traffic environment and feel that something has to be done to make them safer. I simply cannot understand how people can accept that a vehicle can be legally driven on the road which such clear and documented shortcomings when it comes to interacting with other road users.

Qualitymark · 07-11-2015 11:26am

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Concrete is delivered 'ready-mixed' to 99% of sites.

So deliver readymix during the day and everything else at night. It would still cut down the number of trucks on the daylight streets enormously - with exra added safety

:):) for cyclists.

rollingscone · 07-11-2015 11:53am

Cutting down the number of precious dumdums careening ineptly about the roads in their private cars would be much more effective.

They create the rat race.

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments